January 31, 2014

New York Times columnist Charles Blow discovers a new engine fueling the War on Women: having female loved ones makes men more sexist. Apparently, being around women they love causes males to notice average differences between men and women, and Noticing, as we've all been warned, leads to conservatism.

The problem with having your message powered by machismo is that it reveals what undergirds such a stance: misogyny and chauvinism. The masculinity for which they yearn draws its meaning and its value from juxtaposition with a lesser, vulnerable, narrowly drawn femininity.

We have seen recent research suggesting that men with daughters are more likely to be Republican and a study finding that men with sisters are more likely to be Republican. *

The study of men with sisters was conducted by researchers at Stanford Graduate School of Business and Loyola Marymount University. A report from Stanford about the study concluded, “Watching their sisters do the chores ‘teaches’ boys that housework is simply women’s work, and that leads to a traditional view of gender roles — a position linked to a predilection for Republican politics.”

It's almost as if the wives, daughters, and sisters of men are poisoning men's minds against the truths of feminism, which are so much more obvious to males sitting alone in their parents' basements.

Seriously, as Henry Kissinger has noted, there will never be a final victor in the Battle of the Sexes because there is too much fraternizing with the enemy.
--------
* Here is statistician Andrew Gelman trying to work through the puzzles of how to test for these effects without measuring something else, such as propensity to have larger families.

71 comments:

“Watching their sisters do the chores ‘teaches’ boys that housework is simply women’s work, and that leads to a traditional view of gender roles — a position linked to a predilection for Republican politics.”

Or perhaps men concluded that after having never - never in their whole lives - seen a woman cleaning a carbuerator, snaking out a drain, or installing a new light-switch.

constant attack leads to constant defense - which is the reason for the tactic...it only really works on people who like to be agreeable. i like being agreeable but not to people who use tactics like that.

anyway

conservatism is basically K-type people encouraging r-type people to be like K-type people. this is good for them.

modern liberalism is about K-type liberals encouraging r-type people to remain r-type people. this is bad for them.

(but means the liberal's kids will have less competition when they grow up).

So, somebody named their kid "Chuck Blow". Cool. I like their discretion. Chuck Blow is a lot better than "Richard Blow", for example. Still...there's a novelty restaurant name hidden in that. It's just a matter of finding the best one:

I glanced at the Stanford study and did not find any breakdown by race or ethnicity. If there really is a link to having sisters and voting GOP, than this study surely ONLY pertains to white males, and white gentile males at that.

Jews with sisters still probably lean democrat in much the same way that upper middle class, married Jews do. I believe it is has been written on this blog before that Jews earn like Episcopalians, but vote like Puerto Ricans.

Given blacks 95% support of democrats, it doesn't look like having sisters does much to change this fact.

Also, Blow's NYT piece mentions this:

The problem with having your message powered by machismo is that it reveals what undergirds such a stance: misogyny and chauvinism.

If this is true, then why don't black males vote GOP? Is there any group in this nation with a more machismo attitude?

his past Sunday evening former NSA contractor Edward Snowden sat down for an interview with German television network ARD. The interview has been intentionally blocked from the US public, with virtually no major broadcast news outlets covering this story. In addition, the video has been taken down almost immediately every time it’s posted on YouTube.

One of the biggest factors underpinning this relationship is crime and lawlessness. Women as the physically weaker sex suffer much more when the state fails to control human predators.

A single liberal man is likely to view a "vibrant" neighborhood as exciting and wild. A married man with teenage daughters probably views the same place as a dangerous place where his family isn't safe. In some sense married men fear this more than women themselves because they know how depraved men can be.

I know Steve prefers not to acknowledge any news events which might redound, however slightly, to the credit of a Republican somewhere, but I'm still surprised he's not ventured any remarks on the Queen of the Single Moms over in Tejas. Her cruel reversal-for-fortune reads like an appendix for the "America's Half-Blood Prince" book. It's almost as if the state Democratic Party would rather continue to lose than run a candidate rooted in reality, as if being an oppressed NAM -- but I repeat myself -- is the sine-qua-non prerequisite in their whole nomination process.

Yes, the women I've known were brutal saboteurs of the feminist agenda.

My late wife, Myrna, dragged me forcibly out of my liberal college indoctrination. She thought the ideas behind that were the dumbest shit she'd ever heard. She couldn't comprehend how I ever bought into that BS.

Having gay friends undermines the liberal agenda, too.

My closest friend for 35 years is a gay man who introduced me to men's issues and despises feminism.

Agree with the anonymous poster above. Animals tend towards either pair-bonding (penguins) or tournaments (seals*, deer) depending on how reliant the female is on male resources. As female self-reliance increases, there is no need for a woman to settle for a mediocre male out of necessity. Better to become part of a high-quality male's harem.

"We have seen recent research suggesting that men with daughters are more likely to be Republican and a study finding that men with sisters are more likely to be Republican. *" - Selection bias: men with sisters lived necessarily in families that had a fertility above 1.3 on average, which implies republican.

The problem with having your message powered by machismo is that it reveals what undergirds such a stance: misogyny and chauvinism. The masculinity for which they yearn draws its meaning and its value from juxtaposition with a lesser, vulnerable, narrowly drawn femininity.

Watching pretenders like Blow and Ta-Nehisi Coates try to construct cogent, literary-elegant sentences with SAT words just barely within their intellectual heft is like watching someone trying to sculpt the Pieta using only sticks of dynamite (though, to be fair, literary-pretentious doofuses like David Brooks, Anthony Kennedy, and Barack Obama are almost as bad). Give me vintage Jesse Jackson any day.

Charles Blow is by far the worst of the twelve regular columnists on the NYT's editorial page. No one except Frank Bruni even comes close.

Say what you want about the rest of the writers; they are smart, thoughtful, possess at least a modicum of writing talent, and they focus on important world issues, like the economy, international conflicts, and changes in American society.

Meanwhile Bruni and Blow two seem to have their jobs mainly so the NYT can satisfy each one's respective identity-politics pressure groups. Not surprisingly, a disproportionate amount of their writing is divisive identity-politics pandering like the piece above.

I suspect they think it will help them with the single ladies (overwhelmingly liberal.) It does not, and that's why single white liberal males sound increasingly shrill as they age. They start to sound like those lesbian activists. So much anger.

It's easy to predict what will enrage the power families and their lackeys. Just say you don't want your daughter to marry black, or take drugs. That's enough. Or simply defend inheritance. Dynasty-building is only for the powerful families - your family should avoid it like poison (it's harmful that your influence should extend beyond your own lifetime in any way). Or state that your boy will not wear a dress. They will come after him hammer and tongs.

Al Gore's family can marry into the Schiffs. Your family should be kept at or dragged down to the level of workers in the Tasty Freeze. Preferably with scarred tubes from sleeping around or a black baby with no visible father. That's "cool" and "liberated." It shows that you're "fighting the power." Meanwhile, the power laughs all the way to the hedge fund.

It's easy to predict what will enrage the power families and their lackeys. Just say you don't want your daughter to marry black, or take drugs. That's enough. Or simply defend inheritance. Dynasty-building is only for the powerful families - your family should avoid it like poison (it's harmful that your influence should extend beyond your own lifetime in any way). Or state that your boy will not wear a dress. They will come after him hammer and tongs."

@David: Well said. The only real lasting power is the power to influence the world beyond one's own life. The wealthy want it all for themselves. They want their progeny to inherit the future, and ours to inherit only the dust.

Only one Democrat has won the male vote in presidential races since 1992 — and that was Barack Obama, who won it in 2008 by one percentage point.

It appears the Left is concerned that (white, gentile) men vote GOP in larger numbers, so they are grasping at straws to find the reasons behind this. Hence this ridiculous study.

In the list Blow provided of (white, gentile) male voting since 1992, the greatest percentage of said vote was 55% in 2004. Fifty-five percent, and we are supposed to see this as a problem? In other words the (white, gentile) male vote is pretty much up for grabs AS IT SHOULD BE in a democracy. This is healthy because it shows that both parties can actively compete for those votes.

As opposed to say, the black vote which routinely goes 90% or higher for one side. Tell me what other democracy on Earth, with 40 million people, votes 90% for one party. This would be like Poland voting 90% for one party. The only places where 90% of such a large populace votes one way is in places that are not democracies, such as Saddam winning in a unanimous vote in 2002.

To a lesser extent the same can be said about Jews and Hispanics. In 2012, we were supposed to be happy because Jews only voted 70% for the democrat.

If whites voted in the same bloc-like fashion as minorities and Jews, the democrats would not have a prayer. Yet they bitch because (white, gentile) males have the audacity to give SLIGHTLY over half their votes to the GOP.

The Republican Party is in danger of becoming a man cave of cavemen and the women who can abide them.

Speaking of sexist Republicans, don't you think that the members of uber-exclusive golf clubs like Cypress Point and SFGC should help fund Mark Steyn's defense of the Mann suit? Figure, what, 300 members at each place? So for a $5 million worldwide exposure of perhaps history's greatest fraud, that would be about $8k each for blokes worth an average of 50 mil. Doesn't seem too much to ask.

The only places where 90% of such a large populace votes one way is in places that are not democracies. --anon.

The Deep South gave similar results for the limousine Leninist FDR. Their electors represented 12-20 mil people, but only a small fraction ever voted. Wheels did 10-20 %pts better there than in NYC, and 10-20 %pts better than previous Dem candidates in those states.

I'll let the rest of you wrangle over whether that was a "democracy". I can't begin to care.

Unreal. It looks like in 1932 MS voted 95% for FDR and GA voted 91%. SC actually went 98% for FDR!

Do you suppose if the South still voted like that today, they'd be treated with much more respect? Do you suppose there would be studies like this trying to determine if men with daughters voted democrat?

BTW, here is a great site that allows you to easily toggle through all presidential elections at the national and state level. This is real fun stuff.

The term "female loved ones" raises the issue of sex partners. If there is anything to this theory would that mean that male Republicans have more lifetime sex partners than comparable Democrats?

Interesting if true.

But probably not true, since it's a virtual certainty that Reps marry younger and are less likely to stray. It may be that single Rep males are more successful at getting women into bed than comparable Democrats.

Anyway, how does "loved ones" translate into sexual partners? I wouldn't apply that phrase to more than maybe 20% of my lifetime sex partners, though I liked almost of all of them, some quite a bit.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.